State, counties and cities outline plan to remove fish‑passage barriers and prioritize culverts

Washington state and local officials told the Senate Local Government Committee that tens of thousands of stream crossings are limiting salmon and steelhead access to spawning habitat and outlined a multi‑agency, multi‑program approach to prioritize and fix them.

Tom Jamieson, Fish Passage and Screen Division Manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the committee that “the predominant barrier that is an obstacle to returning fish is road culverts,” and that the department’s inventory already contains roughly 18,000–20,000 known barriers, the majority of which are culverts. Jamieson said culverts account for about 84% of the barriers in the state's inventory and explained how undersized pipes can create excessive velocity, perched outlets and shallow flows that block migrating fish.

The issue has a legal dimension: Jamieson described a federal court injunction that requires the state to correct state‑owned culverts in a defined “case area.” “We have an injunction from the federal court that the state must create fish passable culverts or or remove the blockages,” Jamieson said, and later added that “the injunction requires the state to monitor and then, make passable all of our crossings within the case area forever.” The injunction, he emphasized, applies only to state‑owned culverts in the case area and does not extend to county, city or private crossings.

Why it matters: committee members and presenters said state corrections alone will not restore fish habitat if nearby local or private crossings remain impassable. Carl Schrader of the Association of Washington Cities said the board and statewide strategy must “front load” priorities so funding and work focus on barriers that unlock the most habitat. Axel Swanson of the Washington State Association of County Engineers and other panelists described inventory and grant work counties and cities are doing to identify and submit projects for state funding.

What officials told the committee - Scale and ownership: Jamieson said the state database lists roughly 18,000–20,000 barriers; about 2,000 of those were identified as state‑owned at one time. He said county, city and private owners hold the majority of remaining barriers in the database. - Board and programs: The Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board (established by the legislature in 2014) coordinates funding and prioritization. Jamieson called the board’s two pathways “watershed pathway” and “partnership pathway,” the latter allowing eligible projects submitted by local governments, tribes, conservation districts and private landowners to compete for funding. - Funding and costs: Jamieson and panelists said funding for barrier corrections has increased in the current biennium because of Climate Commitment Act dollars and federal PROTECT (FHWA) funding. Jamieson said about $122.6 million funded 102 projects in the most recent biennium, and he reported notable cost escalation since the pandemic (examples given: DOT projects rose from an average of about $5 million to about $8.8 million; driveway crossings from about $125,000 to about $250,000; typical city/county corrections around $2.1 million). - Prioritization and modeling: the state funded a science panel and contractor to develop an “optimization model” that scores barriers by likely benefits to delisting, Chinook abundance for orca prey, and harvest benefit. The panel’s work is intended to move funding from a pull‑based grant system to a more targeted, push‑focused approach that can seek out the highest‑value barriers statewide. - Rulemaking and standards: Jamieson described Fish and Wildlife rulemaking on in‑stream structures and on screening and diversions under RCW 77.57 (cited in the hearing). The agency will commission a cost‑benefit analysis and present draft language to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. A separate rulemaking on “climate‑adaptive water crossing structures” will be pursued later under the agency’s Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) authority.

Examples and local context - Large‑scale projects: panelists highlighted projects such as the Nelson Dam removal in the Yakima watershed — described as opening hundreds of miles of habitat and involving multiple funding partners and local donors — and the Mill Creek/Walla Walla flood control and restoration effort where engineered pools and structures were used to create passage and habitat at variable flows. - Local capacity challenges: presenters noted smaller cities and counties have limited transportation budgets (example given: Montesano’s annual transportation spending was cited as about $70,000 versus average barrier project costs in the millions), which creates a reliance on state and federal grants. - Permitting and delivery: local officials asked whether permitting and delivery can be streamlined. Panelists said interagency coordination, embedded permitting staff and the joint permitting study (MRSC/JTC) aim to speed permitting for habitat‑beneficial projects.

Open issues and next steps - No formal committee action was taken on policy; presenters asked the committee to consider sustained, coordinated investment so state corrections and local corrections proceed in priority watersheds. Jamieson said the board is attempting pilot runs of the optimization model (first run in the Stillaguamish watershed) and will continue implementation even if additional legislative funds are delayed. - Maintenance and longevity: committee members pressed on long‑term operations and maintenance; county representatives said the board funds corrections to the higher standard required by the injunction (stream‑simulation culverts or full‑span bridges) in order to reduce recurrent repairs.

Ending note: panelists stressed that while many barriers exist, targeted, coordinated investments in priority watersheds can yield substantial habitat gains for salmon and steelhead and related benefits for treaty tribes, fisheries and marine predators such as southern resident orcas.